Should a scientific THEORY be subjected to scrutiny and debate before it is accepted?

Question

If so, then why do liberals get their panties in a bunch whenever scientists voice dissenting views to the THEORY of global warming? Isn't it healthy to openly debate ALL theories, in order to arrive at proper conclusions? Especially one in which the liberals are wanting to spend OUR tax dollars on legislation based on this THEORY???

Why are they trying to silence the opposition, especially where science is concerned?

Excellent, the loony liberals have arrived.

The first liberal poster sums their lunacy up. News flash to liberals: "Consensus" does not equal Fact. Not that you have a great consensus to begin with, there are thousands of well-regarded scientists who have expressed concerns with the THEORY of global warming. Do a google search.

Enragedparrot, apparently you have never heard of Moveon.org? You might want to reseach some of the wack-jobs that your party espouses.

Yes!! More liberal lunacy!! Keep it coming!!

Wait, this lib's whole argument is "John Mccain believes in global warming, so it must be above debate." Pure Comedy.

Flea - "global warming is a fact"

Are you serious? This just proves the ignorance of the left. Or else it proves the effectiveness of the brainwashing of our youth by the liberal establishment.

Either way, your ignorance does not serve you (or your party) well.

Mr. Crankypants - are you saying that if ALL of Mexico came here only Conservatives would be angry?

Wow.

I knew that liberals were weak on illegal immigration, but...wow.

Dan S - a well-thought post. I do have to take exception with your argument, however. Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859, and it can be argued that the theory of evolution has its roots even earlier. The theory of global warming MUCH more recent(wasn't global cooling the new Armageddon theory in the 70's?), and as such, has been subjected to MUCH less scrutiny.

To state that the theory of global warming is even in the same league as the theory of evolution is presumptious at best, and propaganda at worst.

Panchito, I 100% agree with you. The earth is undeniably experiencing warming. The theory in debate relates to if humans are the cause. However, in order to be concise and clear in laymans terms, I worded my question in a simpler form.

iwasnotanazipolka - I agree, this issue is politicized by BOTH sides. But the whole Moveon.org deal is a fight against the scientific process.

For the record, I do not doubt that man may be the cause of global warming. I am also against pollution. However, it irks me how the left demonizes anyone who isn't treating this THEORY with the same urgency as if my house was literally on fire. I feel we need to use our resources not to silence each other, but to debate and study and improve our computer models, which are rudimentary, at best - BEFORE I want our politicians to start throwing my tax dollars into this issue.

philbertpheinstein, that was one of the most ignorant posts I have read in a while, and I see a lot!

Where do I start? First of all, if you bothered to read my stance, I do not doubt that the earth is warming. Nobody really does. I doubt that I need to blindly accept the fact that man is 100% responsible for it. Tell me, how many degrees of warming has man been directly responsible for? Can't tell me? Neither can any scientist.

Also, you mention that Big Oil are the only opponents? Are you that ignorant of the fact that many of the left-wing, liberal environmental organization have millionsof dollars at stake as well? Do you know how many jobs, how much grant money, etc depend on the fact that global warming stays in the limelight?

Do some research, open your eyes, and free yourself from the bondage of liberal ideas.

All I want is to see a theory rightfully debated. Is that too much to ask, liberals?

Answer 1

Because it has nothing to do with science, and the last thing liberals want is debate (or people thinking for themselves).

The climate started changing the day the world was created; it is different today than it was yesterday, and will be different still the next day.

Liberalism, like radical islam, seems to fit every definition of a cult...

Answer 2

Global warming has been subjected to considerable scrutiny, by numerous scientists, scholars and other enviornmental experts around the world. There is ample evidence, receding glaciers, melting of Antartica, Greenland, and virtually every other ice mass. It's hard to fake or ignore that. Ocean water temperatures are climbing, cold water fish are moving north and south, away from the equator, many lakes are at record lows, it's common knowledge that the air temperature is higher over cities. It's been graphed, and found to be accelerating. The dissenters are very few, and mostly financially connected to the OIL industry. Don't worry, all theories have been debated, it's not something new, temperature readings and photos go back many decades.

You seem to be awfully worried about "liberals". Well, it's not a political exclusive problem, no matter how hard you want it to be. Your conservative cars and houses and businesses are radiating heat and dangerous gasses too. And nobody is trying to silence anybody, except for people with their head in the OIL wells. Obviously, they don't want to admit to global warming because it means lost revenue for them, fewer OIL millionaires. Then there's the people getting rich from other OIL adventures, like the sad Iraq trespassing, blood for OIL, debacle. They don't want to believe the glaciers are melting either, refusing to even look at the photographs. They just want the no-bid contracts to keep rolling in.

In summary, you hypothesis is wrong on almost every point, seemingly tainted by your "conservative" stance. The only person you're fooling is yourself..

Answer 3

Yes that is the cornerstone of the Scientific Method.

The problem is that when something is shown to be true, as proved by a lot of sources and experiments, then the scientists who are trying to disprove it are usually working on a political agenda, not in the interest of science.

Global Warming is a theory and so is Evolution, but both have become accepted theories that have been subject to a lot of scrutiny in the scientific community, so they become accepted theories and then additional work is done based on them.

When the Cold Fusion experiment was done the scientists involved were trying to do “good science.” As part of that they showed their work; by publishing articles in scientific magazines. Then other scientists tried to reproduce their work based on those articles. When those scientists couldn’t then the theory became unacceptable. When the scientists themselves couldn’t reproduce the results then the theory was considered to have been disproved.

There is enough scientific data, evidence and articles published to support the theory of Global Warming. In fact there is a preponderance of information out there so that it is accepted by the scientific community as a valid theory. Once this happens then additional work is done on the subject based on that theory being true. This is how the scientific method and the scientific community works.

I am not saying 100% that global warming is ONLY caused by humans, but we are not helping the problem and the things that we are doing have been proven to have been causing harm for decades. The polluting problem of coal plants is well known and the greenhouse cycle is so well known and accepted that to argue against it is to argue against other basic scientific principles like the big bang, evolution, and gravity. I remember reading about the greenhouse theory back when I was a child 40 some odd years ago and the idea was old back then.

The carbon dioxide cycle of plants is well known, documented and proven. The melting of the Artic and Greenland are provable beyond the question of any scientific doubt. All these things are starting to have an influence on our planet. Yes a volcano can produce more pollution in a day than we do in a month, but volcanoes haven’t been doing that for thousands and millions of years.

When you start to question things like evolution with alternate scientific ideas then you get lumped into the same category as those scientists who “proved” that smoking didn’t cause any harm; another words bad science. The Creationist Museum now is attempting to align itself with mainstream science by including dinosaurs in a mural of the animals on Noah’s Ark. Never mind that the physical information says that dinosaurs were dead for millions of years before men or the ancestors of man walked on earth.

The theory of global warming may not be correct, but the FACT of global warming is and what we are currently doing is only adding to the problem. We need to reverse that trend to reduce our carbon footprint so that we can lessen the problem. Also historically the Earth is about due for an Ice Age now; a time when temperatures are cooling so this warming cycle is way out of line. If the Earth is warming up because say Santa’s Elves have their own nuclear reactor then that is happening and when we toss up more CO2 and make the problem worse then we aren’t helping any. If we can find the root cause of the problem, and I really doubt it is Santa’s Elves, then we can work on that; if it is even a problem that we can work on. For now we need to stop making the problem worse and the fact that we are making the problem worse is as clear as the nose on my face.

The thing is I have more support for the “liberal position” than you do for your position. Politics and newspaper reports the hard scientific facts, the journals, the scientific theories and so much more are in agreement that most of the scientific community has accepted global warming as already having been proved. Of course I can’t absolutely prove anything, just like the creationists can’t absolutely prove that evolution is false, except with their version of the bible which has some major questionable scientific value; like the Sun revolving around the Earth, and that the Earth is “fundamental and unchanging.” I can’t prove that an asteroid collision destroyed the dinosaurs, I can’t prove that the big bang happened, and I can’t prove that George Washington was our first president, after all that could have been just some conspiracy by the Stone Masons to make us think that George Washington was the first president of the US. But, most reasonable people think that George Washington was our first president.

Answer 4

I was a sceptic about anthropogenic global warming until a couple of months ago when I started researching it in earnest. Start at Wikipedia, search for global warming on Yahoo!
The reason for all the sceptics is because the loony environmentalists are using it to bash capitalism, but they seem to ignore the socialist country's emissions. Even the big corporations are admitting that we are causing it, and want a seat at the table when it is time to start doing something about it.
Some of the sceptics have good arguments, though. A person shouldn't dismiss some of their better ideas.
And it is no use turning into a fanatic like hypocrite Al Gore, just learn about it and consider what our options will be to deal with it.

Answer 5

For a minute, I thought this was going to be an evolution problem which is really undebateable as it pits religion and science.
I agree with you that global warming needs to be debated and all sides should give air to their beliefs. But the Bush administration is as culpable as any group - quashing internal debate with its domain, appointing lobbyists to environmental decision making decisions who clearly have an anti-global warming bias. You talk of liberals but it is Bush who is obstructing dialog.
If you think about many proposals, most are simply proposals to limit the amount of crap that is spewed into the atmosphere, the seas, the landfills. These are sound environmental acts opposed by those who see them as taking money out of the pockets of the polluters. Recycling, energy conservation, alternative power sources, careful use of carbon fuels and other nonrenewable resources all will contribute to making this a better world.

Answer 6

Yet another right-winger who's got this elaborate argument based on nothing more than a complete misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means.

A theory can be rigorously tested and debated, and it will STILL be called a "theory." The word theory is different from the word hypothesis (look them up). The fact is that global warming has been very well tested and debated, and while the details are still open to debate, you can't walk in and claim that just because it's still open to debate, that makes it completely worthless. It's on very firm scientific footing, and if you can't start with that fact, you're the one being anti-science.

Answer 7

My Opionions: It is in the best interest of big oil to push for reduced oil consumption. Sell less, but at a higher price. Secondly, because big oil has massive reserves of WEALTH, they can sit at the forefront of alternative energy sources, research and price control. OOPS. Did I say price control. The liberals soak up campaign money from big oil and proceed to push a big lie. Where does the earth get its heat from? The sun. What else is going on? The earth's magnetic field is weaking. Thereby allowing the sun's energy to heat up the atmosphere even more. Mankind has zero effect on the magnetic field. Lastly, the earth is dynamic. It is not, never has been,and never will be static. There is always constant change to its overall temperature. And half of one degree change over 100 years is no cause for alarm.

Answer 8

The best scientific theories should be tentatively accepted until they are disproven or there are better ones. So no, since climate change science is the best predictor of what will happen as a result of hydrocarbon burning, we should not abandon it and we should assume it's true for now AT THE SAME TIME we scrutinize it. If we wait until it is proven to act, then maybe mexico will have a 100 year drought and then ALL of them will come here, boy would that make the conservatives mad!

Only the weakest argument and logic requires so many additional details.

Answer 9

That's because global warming is a fact there is no theory it's measurable and it has been raising significantly over the past ten years, dramatically. As for the cause that's up for debate but from the pompousness in your question you sound like you must be a conservative and we all know their is no debate with you guys you believe in what ever your momma or your god tells you so science has no place in your consciousness you are as ignorant as those who believed the same rubbish you do, you are all sheep.... If the earth ever is destroyed by global warming or a comet or what ever you will just believe it is the Apocalypse and destiny as written in the bible and your own ignorance will make you helpless to do anything about it... wake up expand your mind don't be afraid to learn you can do it.

Answer 10

actually most of the scientific community believes there is some sort of global warming going on. The question is how severe is it?


and why are you politicizing global warming? It is a science issue not a political.

Answer 11

Absolutely. That's why scientists have been debating the theory for over a century now. That's why virtually all climate scientists are in agreement over it.

No one is trying to 'silence the opposition', there just isn't any. Stop being so paranoid.

Edit: Dude, I have to take exception to your response to Dan S. Global warming theory has been around for about as long as the theory of evolution by natural selection. The greenhouse effect was was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1829, Svante Arrhenius calculated the effect a doubling of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere would have in 1896, and Guy Stewart Callender formulated a theory to explain the already observed warming in 1939. So the bulk of the theory has been around for nearly a century and a half.

So I would certainly place anthropogenic global warming theory in the same league as evolution by natural selection.

Please explain to me what 'party' I have that could be espousing anything. because the last time I checked, I was refusing to align myself with any party on the grounds that they were all idiots.